Louis C.K. says men are the number one threat to women. That’s not even close to being true, so why say it?

Here are two stories about comedian Louis C.K., who, in his new HBO special, claims that men are the number one threat to women.

“How do women still go out with guys, when you consider that there is no greater threat to women than men? We’re the number one threat to women! Globally and historically, we’re the number one cause of injury and mayhem to women.”

If you google “leading cause of injury to women”, you will immediately get a whole slew of links to domestic violence websites, where the “fact” that men are the leading cause of injury to women is repeated endlessly.

But it’s not true.

The leading cause of injury to women GLOBALLY is traffic. Yeah, cars are way more dangerous than men. The second leading cause of injury is a fall. Ladders are more dangerous than men.

Let’s look at Western society more carefully then, shall we? Maybe it’s just Australian, Canadian, British and American men who suck this badly?

In Canada the leading causes of injury:

Traffic Accidents

Falls

Self-harm

Summary by age group and sex:

Less than 1 year: Among both males and females, Falls were the leading cause of injury hospitalization, followed by Assault .

1 to 4 years: Among both males and females, Falls were the leading cause of injury hospitalization, followed by Poisoning .

5 to 9 years: Among both males and females, Falls were the leading cause of injury hospitalization, followed by Struck by/against .

10 to 14 years: Among both males and females, Falls were the leading cause of injury hospitalization . Struck by/against was the second leading cause of injury hospitalization among males, while Intentional Self-harm was second among females .

15 to 19 years: Among males, Falls were the leading cause of injury hospitalization, followed by Motor Vehicle Traffic Collisions . Among females, Intentional Self-harm was the leading cause of injury hospitalization, followed by Motor Vehicle Traffic Collisions.

20 to 24 years: Among males, Assault was the leading cause of injury hospitalization, followed by Falls . Among females, Intentional Self-harm was the leading cause of injury hospitalization, followed by Falls .

Why is it that someone as well known as Louis C.K can spout such a demonstrably false idea, and then be applauded for it?

Men are the leading cause of death and injury to women? Men are the biggest threat to women? The source of mayhem? Women are brave to even consider being in the company of a man because of the dire threat to their personal safety?

You are more likely to be injured driving to meet your date or tripping down the stairs on your way out of the house than any other risk factors combined!

What if we exchanged one ism for another? What would the reaction be if Louis C.K had said:

“How do white folks still go anywhere with black folks, when you consider that there is no greater threat to whites than blacks? They’re the number one threat to whites! Globally and historically, black people the number one cause of injury and mayhem to white people.”

I think we all know the answer to that question, and when you exchange race for gender, it is immediately evident that claiming such a thing is hateful to the extreme.

“Fuck you for trying to make “misandry” happen”, writes Kate Harding in her epic screed of insanity at Jezebel.

It’s already happening. There is no other word to describe what Louis C.K. and the people standing in line to applaud him are doing. Misandry. An explicit hatred and fear of men.

Men are NOT the leading cause of injury and mayhem to women. They’re not even fucking close.

Louis and others like him can get away with saying that kind of stuff because it plays into a larger cultural narrative about men as dangerous and violent and threats that need to be contained and diffused. In order to make the world safe for women, men must be neutered and disarmed. Yesterday, we discussed the use of persuasive writing to convince otherwise rational, sane and kind people to believe something so patently false, so profoundly untrue that it beggars belief to think anyone could not see the reality.

That is exactly what Slate and Jezebel and every other media outlet that picked up the story are doing. They are using propaganda to convince otherwise sane and rational people that the biggest threat to women is men.

Cars are the biggest threat to both men and women at the moment, followed by stairs and ladders.

It’s no surprise that Louis C.K is being lauded by feminists, and in a way, it’s a good thing. The cracks in feminism are turning into canyons, and revealing the real F behind the F-word: feminism has become fascism.

The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact. Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism.

Henry A. Wallace

Fascism has reared its ugly head in Western culture many times, but it has never won the battle. Fascists have always been defeated. The more openly feminism reveals itself as fascism, the better. You can’t fight an enemy if you don’t know they’re an enemy.

The lies of feminism are getting so bold it’s inevitable that eyes will open. Many will believe the lies, but many more will start to see the truth.

Sponsored links

dgarsys

Recently came across this article at the site of one of my favorite anarcho-libertarian atheist wiccans…. “What if it really was like that…” – where he asks if there really is a basis for hypergamy, and more to the point, thinking of women as at least more prone to be sexually unfaithful when running into guys higher up the social-sexual ladder. You may be interested in his use of the term “killing the buddha”

We can find some support for this theory even in present time. I’ve noted before that in our modern, liberated era women seem not to be demanding as high a clearing price for sex as they should. In traditional terms, they’re being lustful. And this is in a culture that probably encourages sex mixing as much or more than any in history, driving the opportunity cost associated with not randomly humping strangers to an unprecedented low.

Not the first time he’s tackled “game” related topics. The red pill is strong in this article (“A natural contemplates game”):http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3000

And this one (also linked in the excerpt above) : “Reconsidering Sexual Repression”

Women are hypergamous. They want to marry men who are bigger, stronger, higher-status, a bit older, and a bit brighter than they are. This is massively confirmed by statistics on actual marriages; only the “a bit brighter” part is even controversial, and most of that controversy is ideological posturing.

OK, so what happens when women get educated, achieve economic equality, etcetera? Their pool of eligible hypergamic targets shrinks; the princess marrying the swineherd is a fairytale precisely because it’s so rare. More women seeking hypergamy from a higher baseline means the competition for eligible males is more intense, and womens’ ability to withold sex vanishes even supposing they want to. Thus, college campuses today, and plunging marriages rate tomorrow.

For what it’s worth – Erics blog is also the origin of the term “kafkatrap” (This term is actually what I thought of first when reading the article and seeing your reply….): http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122

One very notable pathology is a form of argument that, reduced to essence, runs like this: “Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…} confirms that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}.” I’ve been presented with enough instances of this recently that I’ve decided that it needs a name. I call this general style of argument “kafkatrapping”, and the above the Model A kafkatrap. In this essay, I will show that the kafkatrap is a form of argument that is so fallacious and manipulative that those subjected to it are entitled to reject it based entirely on the form of the argument, without reference to whatever particular sin or thoughtcrime is being alleged.

As someone who identifies with being a feminist, even I don’t see men as the enemy, and I don’t know many feminists I associate with who do. Which is why I do not associate with Kate Harding. The fact that she calls herself a feminist makes me want to vomit. She’s what gives feminists a bad name.

advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.

Personally, I take this for granted, by now. When I picture a ‘feminist’ in my head, I do not picture this definition. I picture an older or unattractive women searching for ways to illustrate every way they can think of how men are shitty and how women need to be more like men, even in ways that they are biologically different.

I think when when we look back on this era historically, this will be known as the hedonist-feminist era. Tucker Max will be considered an emblematic literature representation of the decade.

>We have the passive, “innocent” egg, violently attacked by that aggressive sperm.

You think you’re joking but I’ve actually seen that in the feminist literature. I’m sorry that it’s been too many years for me to remember where.

Mark

That would not surprise me in the least. Renowned feminist Luce Irigaray thinks the equation e=mc^2 is sexist. That is, speed of light is sexist. So yeah, I can believe pretty much anything could come from an academic feminist.

And of course the sperm/egg quandary paves the way for a great cop-out. Every time a woman does anything wrong, she can always blame that aggressive X-chromosome her father’s sperm forced upon her innocent egg and maternal X-chromosome and violating it, imbuing her with that impure masculine essence.

Oh, and just for clarification, the equation is sexist because it privileges light over all the other speeds (don’t ask me, the whole argument is stupid) that we require to live.

Yeah, cause the SUN isn’t the central reason we exist in the first place.

I guess she figures hamster speed is just as vital.

Mark

Yeah, it privileges ‘rigid’ light speed over ‘feminine’ fluid dynamics. Of course, with the right adjectives you could reverse the characterizations (light is feminine, enveloping, nurturing of life, wavelike energy woven into the fabric of the universe, while fluid is discrete matter rather than energy, moves with physical force, and destroys villages and is evil, etc. wait no, fluid dynamics=semen!) What gets me is that most of these feminists are followers of Jacque Lacan, who in addition to being a raging lunatic, believed that the square root of -1 (‘i’)=penis. Yes, penis.

One physicist said of Irigaray’s claim that the reason for any lack of progress in fluid dynamics is ‘because it’s really difficult.’ Lots of unproven theorems and systems of differential equation that would probably make Luce’s head explode. My guess is she knows as much math as a typical 4th grader, so she’s in no position to talk about why mathematicians or physicists have solved some problems and not others.

And where do all our atoms come from? Exploding suns. So there’s also violence.

It’s even worse than that. We also enjoy sentient privilege. There are billions of other atoms that just form things like rocks or dirt instead of living sentient beings. We oppress them and abuse them by building houses out of them etc..

he had some good stuff, but i don’t think i’ll ever listen to his sketches again because of this. nice way to sell men out louis

zykos

He’s one of the most prominent manginas out there. There’s a difference between making fun of yourself, something almost every single comedian does because it’s such an effective tool in humor, and being a so supplicating you lose your self-respect. Jokes go through a spectrum from plain to funny to uncomfortable, and he’s undeniably in the uncomfortable range.

sqt

In Louis’ world he probably is the threat to women he thinks all men are. At least that’s the impression I got from his tweets regarding Sarah Palin. It’s funny (in a tragic way) but guys like this are why feminism flourishes. One of the reasons I’m not a big supporter of abortion is because I think it lets predatory men use women and throw them away consequence free. Yes women are responsible for their own promiscuity, but guys like this happily exploit it and then try to portray themselves as someone who champions women’s rights. Yeah right. I seriously doubt he gives a damn about women.

Mark

True, he could just be projecting. Maybe Mr. C.K. has some perverted thoughts of his own, and nullifies the guilt in his own mind by saying, ‘oh, but that’s all men, the bastards.’

I was curious, so I actually looked up those tweets. Apparently as long as a guy’s a feminist, and the woman he’s targeting isn’t, he gets carte blanche to be as misogynist as he wants. It seems kind of like a feminist extortion racket: “join us and we’ll protect you from misogyny; but if you don’t join us, we’ll make sure you experience misogyny at the hands of the ‘male wing’ of the movement.” In other words, pay us homage and we’ll protect you from ourselves. I believe the Gambino family had a similar arrangement with the New York garment industry.

Oh yeah. You don’t have to look any further than Bill Maher to see this phenomenon in full effect. There is literally no slur that is too offensive as long as it is used against a conservative women. I’ve heard her called every name in the book (Michelle Bachman too) and read some vicious attacks against her family (even her son who has Down’s Syndrome) and it’s all considered fair game. If a man professes to be on the side of the feminist left he can be as misogynistic as he wants. It’s insane. Feminism really is for women who hate themselves.

Z

Yes, but abortion is not necessarily an issue of “promiscuity”. You can get pregnant just as easily while being monogamous… and married. And contrary to the picture painted with propaganda, a good many abortions are fully supported by the man inside a monogamous relationship. i.e. he’s not “going” anywhere. It’s just that they used birth control, it failed, they don’t want to bring kids here, and so there you have it.

I don’t know. It seems to be that the most ardent supporters of abortion are the guys who claim their all down with a “woman’s right to choose,” but really they’re just looking for an escape hatch. To me it’s just a means to consequence free behavior. I’m not arguing in favor of banning it, I’m just saying I don’t think there’s a lot of moral high ground on this issue.

My dad has always been a one-issue guy when it comes to voting and won’t even consider a candidate that’s pro-life. But I’ve never gotten the sense that he gives a damn about the effect an abortion has on a woman- he just didn’t want to get trapped by an unwanted pregnancy. That’s what bugs the crap out of me when it comes to this issue. The life of the child and the health of the mother are only secondary considerations to a lifestyle choice. I have never had an unplanned pregnancy- one doesn’t have to be a brain surgeon to properly use birth control. I do think the morning after pill is a good compromise on the issue. It’s not a religious thing with me and I do think there’s a window for termination. I just hate to see people use abortion as birth control (I’ve known women who have had 4-5 abortions because they’re too lazy to take birth control).

I read an article once by a reformed feminist and she had a lot of interesting thoughts on how women are abused within the context of women’s rights and how most liberal men are really the most misogynistic. I’ll have to see if I can find it.

I agree there are some men like that, but not all. For example Mr Z and I BOTH agree we are not bringing children into this world. Period. We are not irresponsible idiots, so we use birth control. But, if an accident were to happen, he and I are both agreed on what we would do in that circumstance.

I agree with you with regards to abortion as birth control. And for the record I hope I never have to make that choice. I believe that’s a life. I just can’t bring anybody here. I can’t explain in any rational way why I feel so strongly about this, but nobody is coming here through me. I just don’t like this world. I mean I don’t have a bad life, not by a long shot… I just don’t like this place in general and can’t justify bringing someone here.

With regards to liberal men being the most misogynist, I can see that. It gels with my experiences.

Fred Flange, S.J.

I will offer a limited defense of Louis here. I saw this show, and figured out what he was doing so it didn’t offend my red pill mindset. He’s setting up the gags by framing his more offensive material thus: assume the truth of the bad-men “cultural narrative”, then when he gets offensive, that gets a pass because demonstrating the assumed narrative – in this case, that men are the “threat.” Which is a position he’s done before in his act: yes the world says I’m the bad guy. Now let me show you how bad I am. When he then proceeds to demonstrate with his offensive sexual material!
Similar “assume the narrative” framing has been done by Chris Rock, Patton Oswalt and Bill Burr, and even the late Patrice O’Neal: enabling all of them to spout red pill “evil”, then smooth it over with some pithy humor about male foibles so the ladies don’t get too uncomfortable.
And, like Ricky Gervais, Louis often takes on a fairly loathsome persona for a few minutes (i.e., the psychotically frustrated husband going on vacation) – so when he “validates” the “threatening male” narrative, part of the context is adopting that persona for part of the act elsewhere.

I dunno. It doesn’t seem like he’s being cheeky with his anti man (and anti-white) rhetoric. I think he actually believes it. (He could actually be trying to make feminism and victim politics palatable to the “average man” by peppering his act with non-politically correct humor, didja ever think of that?)

JG

It’s obvious that he’s trying to get with some feminist woman of some sort so he’s currying favor with her. I know he’s divorced, who’s he trying to get with romantically?

Goober

That’s what I was thinking. Sounds like some calculated white knighting from our friend Louis in an attempt to get into someone’s pants. Probably nothing more.
His premise does offend me in no small part because my presence should never be viewed as threatening by any person who doesn’t mean me, or another innocent, harm.

In fact, me being around should be comforting to anyone since I’m very protective of the people around me, so if someone wants to hurt one of them they’ll need to go through me first or deal with me after.

Vladimir

I don’t share your optimism, JB. Feminism will ruin this society beyond repair before enough people realize what’s happening.
Feminism brings short term gains for governments (votes from easy manipulated women), so they’ll never stop tender to these organisations.

If it’s an act of bravery for a woman to date a man, is it an act of bravery for a man to befriend a man? Given that the average male is just a ticking timebomb of violence, waiting to explode, is it an act of bravery to stand in the same room as one?

This comment makes more sense if we understand Louis’ unspoken desire to normalize his potato-sack physique. If men are THE threat to women, then someone like him who can’t punch his way out of a paper bag becomes more desirable.

This is just another example that shows that the entire foundation of feminism is a massive application of the apex fallacy. Some men are dangerous to women becomes men in general are the number one threat to women. Some men are rapists (statistics show that a small number of men are responsible for the majority of rapes) becomes men in general are potential or actual rapists and, of course, “Rape Culture!” Some men make more money than women becomes men make more than women. Some housewives in the 50s and 60s were unhappy at home and wanted to work becomes the concepts of “housewife” or “stay-at-home-mom” are inherently oppressive and women who make this choice are both victims of sexism and simultaneously to be pitied, marginalized and shunned.

You get the point. A movement built on a fallacy is dangerous, as feminism has demonstrated…

hahahaha yeah I remembered her when I was reading all the fat acceptance stuff. (I categorize the FA movement right up there with alien conspiracy theories so I can’t look away!) I didn’t connect at the time that she was a big feminist… but that would stand to reason I guess.

Interestingly FA has the same defeatest victim narrative as feminism. And the same lies about being empowered when you are really disempowering yourself. When you say: “I can’t lose weight. It’s better to just accept it and expect society to accept it… nay LOVE it…” well, that’s defeatest.

What is it with feminists and flipping off the camera these days? Do they really think there’s some ‘patriarchist’ somewhere watching youtube videos going having a heart attack because ugly bloggers keep giving him the finger? Or is thinking, ‘gee, I didn’t know they were so angry, I guess now I’ll reevaluate my views.’ It would appear “fuck you” is the most convincing argument some people can think of.

Catlover

Louis C.K. has been shit ever since he got divorced. It seems like he’s got his eyes set on some hot feminist, and this is his way of trying to get into her pants.

Mouse

Having just switched that special off in disgust, this post really cheered me up. Thank you.

Laura Holt

I adore Louis C.K.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with him acknowledging that domestic violence, rape and murder against women occur and that. He did it in a way that managed to be funny and not at all preachy.

I think his use of hyperbole i.e. Men are the greatest threat to women was fantastic. I think it made some men aware of things that women are all too well aware. I’ve got loads of guy friends and not one of them sends texts or calls their friends or parents to provide the particulars of an upcoming date with a new girl; whereas me and my girlfriends always do. We’re aware that we’re smaller and not as strong as our dates and that we could be at a disadvantage if our date became violent.

A scary thought and yet Louis had several lines that got me in that bit. I FELL OUT laughing when Louie : affected a trusting girly voice and “Sure I’ll get in your car with my little shoulders. Where are we going?” and in a very matter of fact guy voice answered “To your death, statistically.”

He continued to comically exaggerate this idea of a woman’s courage when he asked the guys in the audience to imagine that they can only go out with a half bear half lion. *Louis affects girly voice* “Oh, I hope this one’s nice. I hope he doesn’t do what he’s [i]going[/i] to do.”

I thought this bit had the same tongue in cheek brilliance that he used in his it’s good to be White bit. He made me laugh so hard when he said he could time travel to anywhere and when he got there he’s sure there would be a table ready for him. I laughed so hard because ever since I saw Back to the Future when I was a little girl I wanted to time travel until 5th grade when I realized my gender and bi-racial existence would make time travel risky business.

Matt Burga

If ladders and traffic cause more injuries to women than men, stupidity and a lack of spacial awareness is the true cause of harm.

Hello, i read your blog occasionally and i own a similar one and i was just wondering if you get a lot of
spam comments? If so how do you stop it,
any plugin or anything you can suggest? I get so much lately it’s driving me insane so any
support is very much appreciated.